Occasionally we are fortunate enough to have an interviewee contact us after an episode and extend The Conversation further. Gary sent me this note in response to the discussion Neil and I had at the conclusion of his interview. –Aengus

First, I maintain that being vegan is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being nonviolent.That is, we cannot claim to embrace nonviolence but continue to consume animal products,which necessarily involve violence, given that our best justification for doing so is that theytaste good. There is no other compulsion or necessity. We certainly do not need animal foods foroptimal health. Therefore, we cannot consistently claim to embrace nonviolence at the same timethat we are participating directly in the unjustifiable suffering and death of sentient beings. Yes,there are other things that we should do to live a nonviolent life. But veganism is certainly theleast we can do given that consuming animal products cannot be justified.

Second, as to the impossibility of living a perfect nonviolent life: I never denied that. Indeed, itwould be absurd to do so. The most conscientious practitioner of nonviolence necessarily causessome harm. The point is that if we take nonviolence seriously, there’s a great deal of harm wecould avoid with relatively little or no inconvenience to ourselves. So I was not proposing any“purity” with respect to nonviolence. I was simply saying that not being able to live a nonviolentlife perfectly does not justify continuing to engage in violence that is easily avoided.

Third, although Jainism and other spiritual traditions inform my thinking about nonviolence, sodo other things, such as moral realism. In any event, my theory about animal rights has neverrelied on any notions other than traditional philosophical concepts. Most of us accept that,other things being equal, the fact that an action results in the suffering or death of a human ornonhuman counts against that action for moral purposes. The imposition of suffering or death ona sentient being requires a justification and whatever else may suffice, pleasure, amusement, orconvenience cannot suffice. To the extent that we do accept this basic moral idea—and, again, Ithink most of us do—we are committed to veganism.

Fourth, the idea that being “pragmatic” requires that we regard veganism as too “abstract” or“impractical,” and that we have to accept some utilitarian thinking and, perhaps, aim for betterconditions for animals, misses the point. Because animals are property, human interests willalways outweigh animal interests and animal welfare standards will, as a result, always remainlow. That is, animals are chattel property and have only an economic value. It costs money toprotect their interests and we generally do that only when we get an economic benefit. Thisensures that welfare standards are always low and generally linked to the level of protectionnecessary to exploit animals in an economically efficient way. Think about it: we have hadanimal welfare for 200 years now and we are exploiting more animals in more horrific waysthan at any time in human history. So I would regard the utilitarian approach as profoundlyunpragmatic!

Fifth, “tipping point” studies indicate that we need only to get about 10% of the population toaccept veganism as a moral baseline before that belief becomes widely accepted in the society.When we consider this, along with the undisputable facts that animal agriculture is destroyingthe environment and is detrimental to human health, promoting veganism as a moral baseline ismost pragmatic.

Sixth, both of you seem to assume that going vegan is difficult. On the contrary, it’s extremelyeasy and far less expensive than a diet involving animal foods. A minute—literally—on theInternet will produce thousands of healthy, inexpensive, and easy recipes.

So Aengus, Neil: are you vegan yet?

If not, it’s because you don’t want to be, and not because there’s any inherent difficulty inconsuming a diet of fruits, vegetables, grains, beans, and nuts, or because there’s any tensionbetween theory or practice, or because going vegan requires that you accept a “pure” version ofnonviolence.

Gary L. FrancioneBoard of Governors Professor of Law& Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Distinguished Scholar of Law and PhilosophyRutgers University School of LawGary L. Francione

2 Responses

Leah / 2-23-2013 / ·

This is an amazing interview on too many levels to count. I’m so hoping to see that 10% tipping point in my lifetime.

In addition to cheering on all three of you for being so well-spoken and knowledgeable, I particularly admire the civility of the conversation, post-conversation, and post-conversation final comments by Francione. You all sound open and interested in non-violent dialogue. I may never be able to absorb all your comments and philosophies, but I sure am grateful to hear them.

Thank you!

thedialogueproject / 4-3-2013 / ·

I’m just discovering the project. And I’m looking forward to listening.